U. S. Supreme Court: No Juvenile Execution

[Tiassa]

Call me the last in Emma Goldman's bloodline.

You wish.

 

[sargentlard]

Sargentlard,

Tiassa basically said what I was aiming at:
As such, it has the effect of "cheapening human life".

...and letting healthy males rot in jales for the rest of their lives against other equally desperate men is any less ethically challenged?

If we consider human life to be 'sacred', what point is there in having more blood on our hands? Especially from such a low element of society..

But, you and Tiassa make it sound as if the death penalty is given as the first, easy resort. Like Xev pointed out: The death penalty is quite a serious sentence to be given and is handed seldom. No cheapening of human life really, more like a last resort measure to rid of those who show no remorse.

Reality shows cheapen human life more than the death sentence.

The only time I'd consider the death penalty to be valid is when a person in authority supports or allows acts of atrocity (ie Stalin starving millions of Ukranians)

So killing is then right in some cases? The human element is overshadowed by social status? Satlin was just as twisted as Manson...so why ok Stalin's offing when Manson still continues to live in his dellusional world.

 

[Xerxes]

These healthy males are well taken care of -in Canadian jails at least. The bottom line is that they've lost their freedom. Society loosing trust for them isn't unethical.

We have a deprecated law in Calgary which says that a citizen may be bannished from the city with a horse, gun, and two days worth of food/water. Thats how it used to be. But you simply can't 'banish' anymore. Colonization of the entire world makes 'fleeing' impossible. The world is cramped, and so we throw these people in jails.

That or they go to France.

No cheapening of human life really, more like a last resort measure to rid of those who show no remorse.

Remorse is a way to guage how much the person can be trusted not commit similar acts in the future. It has nothing to do with judging their worth as a human.

Yes, the death penalty is handed out rarely. But ask yourself - would you rather live in a place like Texas or Canada? You'll find that the most socially advanced nations have done away with capital punishment. Its just as obsolete as banishment.

Reality shows cheapen human life more than the death sentence.

No, they only showcase it. You want to see cheap human life, look for sick mutants lining up to watch people get gassed by the state.

So killing is then right in some cases? The human element is overshadowed by social status? Satlin was just as twisted as Manson...so why ok Stalin's offing when Manson still continues to live in his dellusional world.

Only a few cases. Manson was not in a position of extreme power and trust. Stalin was.

On that note, let me say that Thatcher was 1000x sicker than Manson(but I don't think she deserves death either).

 

[Tiassa]

I was cleaning up my desktop and I came across a link worth noting:

Henderson, Steven. "The science behind the ruling". SeattleTimes.com. March 2, 2005. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002194146_scotscience02.html​

Sorry it took me so long to post it.

 

[talk2farley]

Regardless of the moral accuracy of the Courts decision, it was legally out of bounds and therefore ethically indefensible. The Court exists as the protector and executor of the law, not its author. Questions of morality are irrelevant. One need only look at the "defense" offered by the Court; they had the audacity to claim deference to EU law, which is totally irrelevant.

 

[Tiassa]

Interesting thesis.

 

[Tiassa]

What I suppose to be the obvious question is nagging me:

What should the Supreme Court have done?​

 

[talk2farley]

"What should the Supreme Court have done?"

Upheld the conviction and death sentence insofar as it was otherwise within the bounds of the law. Declaring juvenile executions "cruel and unusual" in the absence of some superior evidence versus what was offered was improper in the extreme (Justice Scalia, speaking for the opposition, phrased it best when he said the court had determined that "the views of our own citizens are essentially irrelevant," while the view of "the so-called international community" had been "given center stage.") There was no scientific or rational basis for the decision; the defense offered was wholly popular and subjectively moral (see "evolving standards of decency" and "30 states now reject the death penalty," quoting Justice Kennedy who spoke for the majority). The court is making a mockery of itself.

 

[Tiassa]

Upheld the conviction and death sentence insofar as it was otherwise within the bounds of the law.

So you would have the judiciary take the decision out of the states' hands?

Declaring juvenile executions "cruel and unusual" in the absence of some superior evidence versus what was offered was improper in the extreme (Justice Scalia, speaking for the opposition, phrased it best when he said the court had determined that "the views of our own citizens are essentially irrelevant," while the view of "the so-called international community" had been "given center stage.")

There wasn't an absence of evidence; of course, I'm not sure what constitutes "superior" for your purposes.

As to the international community, read the Syllabus for Roper v. Simmons. You'll note that the attention given in the Syllabus to international standards is brief, about half the words given to national consensus.

As in Atkins, the objective indicia of national consensus here–the rejection of the juvenile death penalty in the majority of States; the infrequency of its use even where it remains on the books; and the consistency in the trend toward abolition of the practice–provide sufficient evidence that today society views juveniles, in the words Atkins used respecting the mentally retarded, as “categorically less culpable than the average criminal,” 536 U.S., at 316. The evidence of such consensus is similar, and in some respects parallel, to the evidence in Atkins ....

.... Although, by contrast to Atkins, the rate of change in reducing the incidence of the juvenile death penalty, or in taking specific steps to abolish it, has been less dramatic, the difference between this case and Atkins in that respect is counterbalanced by the consistent direction of the change toward abolition. Indeed, the slower pace here may be explained by the simple fact that the impropriety of executing juveniles between 16 and 18 years old gained wide recognition earlier than the impropriety of executing the mentally retarded ....

.... *The overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty is not controlling here, but provides respected and significant confirmation for the Court’s determination that the penalty is disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18 .... The United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile penalty. It does not lessen fidelity to the Constitution or pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples underscores the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom.

Roper v. Simmons

It's not that the views of Americans aren't important. Rather, as Marsha Levick, of the Juvenile Law Center, pointed out: "Most states won't let them get tattoos, or get married, or even go to a tanning salon without parental consent ... It's indisputable that nationwide, we now think of youth as distinct." The views of Americans are definitely accounted for.

There was no scientific or rational basis for the decision

Right now, demonstrating that is your burden:

When the court last considered juvenile executions in 1989 and left 16- and 17-year-olds eligible, much of that knowledge wasn't available.

But now, new research — some involving magnetic resonance imaging of the brain — has shown that critical parts of the mind develop later than previously believed, robbing even late-year teenagers of the impulse control and decision-making ability of people just a few years older ....

.... "Emerging from the neuropsychological research is a striking view of the brain and its gradual maturation, in far greater detail than seen before," the American Psychiatric Association said in its brief to the court. "Although the precise underlying mechanisms continue to be explored, what is certain is that, in late adolescence, important aspects of brain maturation remain incomplete, particularly those involving the brain's executive functions" ....

.... "Retribution is not proportional if the law's most severe penalty is imposed on one whose culpability or blameworthiness is diminished ... by reason of youth and immaturity," Kennedy wrote.

SeattleTimes.com

You do have company on the court, though. Justice Scalia, in his dissent, lashed after the APA since it took "precisely the opposite position" in 1990. Scalia's dissent, shares your view that new scientific knowledge and understanding is irrelevant to anything; in criticizing the APA, he makes no response to the idea that the APA is using newer science than the 1990 issue. In accusing the court of picking and choosing its research, Scalia has picked and chosen between the lines, choosing to not even acknowledge what is before his court.

And that's the problem with the assertions against the court's decision. Instead of arguing the reliability or validity of the science, some folks just pretend it's not there.

In the end, of course, is also the note that no matter what the court did, political conservatism could complain:

(A) Affirm state court, overturn juvenile death penalty
(B) Overturn state court, maintain juvenile death penalty, remove criminal sentencing issues from the states
(C) Refuse to hear the case, tacitly affirming the legality of the state court decision overturning death penalty
(D) ????​

So shall we take criminal sentencing out of the states' hands? I suppose that's the next question for those who complain about this decision.
____________________

Notes:

U.S. Supreme Court. Roper v. Simmons (06-633):

-- "Syllabus". March 1, 2005. See http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZS.html
Scalia, J. "Dissent". March 1, 2005. See http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZD1.html​

Henderson, Stephen. "The science behind the ruling". SeattleTimes.com. march 2, 2005. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002194146_scotscience02.html​

 

[talk2farley]

"So you would have the judiciary take the decision out of the states' hands?"

I would have the judiciary do exactly the opposite. Issues of legislation are reserved under the Constitution to the people. Insofar as juvenile execution was otherwise legal under relevant local law, the Supreme Court was obligated not to overturn the conviction but to affirm it.

"...but provides respected and significant confirmation for the Court’s determination that the penalty is disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18 .... The United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile penalty..." (quoting Justice Kennedy, not the OP)

It is a fallacy of the most elementary kind to suggest that any popular consensus can provide confirmation for a given moral judgement, international or otherwise. That the United States is the only country in the world that gives the juvenile death penalty official sanction is similarly irrelevant. Irregardless, the Court is not empowered under the Constitution to cast such judgements. The great irony here is that THE PEOPLE OF THE EFFECTED STATES HAVE HAD THEIR OPINIONS CAST ASIDE BY THEIR OWN JUDICIARY IN FAVOR OF THE OPINIONS OF FOREIGNERS.

"Most states won't let them get tattoos, or get married, or even go to a tanning salon without parental consent ... It's indisputable that nationwide, we now think of youth as distinct." (quoting Marsha Levick, not the OP)

Questions of moral responsibility on the part of the defendant are irrelevant. The court did not rule on the legalities of trying juveniles as adults. The sole determination of this case was that, if convicted as adults, juveniles could not be sentenced to die, under 8th Amendment prohibitions on "cruel and unusual" punishments.

"...in late adolescence, important aspects of brain maturation remain incomplete, particularly those involving the brain's executive functions..." (quoting the Seattle Times, not the OP)

Again, this evidence is applicable only to determinations of juvenile criminal responsibility. The accuracy of such evidence in no way implies that the application of the death penalty to juveniles is any more "cruel and unusual" than its application to adults. The court, recognizing that there was no language under the Constitution prohibiting states from trying juveniles as adults (whether such a trial was morally accurate or otherwise), was then forced to invent some illusory foundation with which to veil their overtly legislative actions, hence turning to 8th amendement justifications in complete absence of evidence. Irregardless of the moral accuracy, then, of the courts decision, this still represents a considerable breach of the peoples right to determine their own moral course in a democratic state, and it sets a dangerous and inherently totalitarian future precedent.

 

[Tiassa]

Issues of legislation are reserved under the Constitution to the people. Insofar as juvenile execution was otherwise legal under relevant local law, the Supreme Court was obligated not to overturn the conviction but to affirm it.

No conviction has been overturned as far as I can tell.

It is a fallacy of the most elementary kind to suggest that any popular consensus can provide confirmation for a given moral judgement, international or otherwise. That the United States is the only country in the world that gives the juvenile death penalty official sanction is similarly irrelevant. Irregardless, the Court is not empowered under the Constitution to cast such judgements. The great irony here is that THE PEOPLE OF THE EFFECTED STATES HAVE HAD THEIR OPINIONS CAST ASIDE BY THEIR OWN JUDICIARY IN FAVOR OF THE OPINIONS OF FOREIGNERS.

The great irony is that you keep insisting that the people have been ignored by the court when it isn't true.

As to the assertion of a fallacy, it's an issue of consistency. Juveniles are not mature enough to make various decisions, or so society holds. If getting laid or married, permanently marking their own bodies, getting a tan, or seeing a movie are not decisions a juvenile is considered competent to make, what of the choice to end a life? Suddenly juveniles are wise and all-knowing?

Thus:

Questions of moral responsibility on the part of the defendant are irrelevant. The court did not rule on the legalities of trying juveniles as adults. The sole determination of this case was that, if convicted as adults, juveniles could not be sentenced to die, under 8th Amendment prohibitions on "cruel and unusual" punishments.

Questions of moral responsibility are relevant and very important when retribution is the question.

The accuracy of such evidence in no way implies that the application of the death penalty to juveniles is any more "cruel and unusual" than its application to adults.

Says you. The death penalty under such circumstances becomes even more pointless. There's a reason the word "retribution" appears in the court's decision: the death penalty doesn't actually gain society anything tangible; it doesn't reduce the crime rate, and due process causes it to be a more expensive devotion of societal resources than throwing someone in prison.

The court, recognizing that there was no language under the Constitution prohibiting states from trying juveniles as adults (whether such a trial was morally accurate or otherwise), was then forced to invent some illusory foundation with which to veil their overtly legislative actions, hence turning to 8th amendement justifications in complete absence of evidence.

Do you even recognize the parties in the case? It's Roper v. Simmons: go look and see who's who.

Irregardless of the moral accuracy, then, of the courts decision, this still represents a considerable breach of the peoples right to determine their own moral course in a democratic state, and it sets a dangerous and inherently totalitarian future precedent.

Such colorful rhetoric.

Let me get this straight, then, just so I'm sure I have it:

This decision represents a considerable breach of the people's right to determine their own moral course in a democratic state, and it sets a dangerous and inherently totalitarian future precedent.​

Yes, I'm setting aside the issue of moral accuracy, as you asked. If the above is a fair restatement, I can only look to the prior section of my post: Do you even recognize the parties in the case?

I'll save you the trouble:

• The case is Roper v. Simmons
• Roper, in this case, represents the state of Missouri
• Simmons, in this case, is the defendant sentenced to death​

Now, ask yourself: why is Roper suing Simmons before the Supreme Court?

Because it was a state court that overturned Simmons' death penalty; Roper wants it back. The court has done nothing but affirm the state's decision.

As such, it is difficult for me to see how this decision represents a breach of the people's right to determine their own moral course in a democratic state.

And, as such, I don't see the dangerous and inherently totalitarian precedent.

• • •​

As a side note, when did protecting people from the excesses of government become "totalitarian"?

• • •​

So let's get this straight:

• There is no conviction overturned. The question is the sentence.
• The Supreme Court's decision upholds and affirms the state's decision.
• The court would have had to refuse (A) scientific evidence pertaining to the state of mind of juveniles, (B) popular consensus regarding the same, and (C) the will of the state of Missouri.​

If I say you're putting too much weight on certain aspects as per conservative talking points, well, that doesn't mean much, since it's your prerogative to do so. However, what you're casting aside as irrelevant becomes an issue since you do so with utterly subjective rhetoric.

 

[talk2farley]

"There is no conviction overturned. The question is the sentence."

Correct. It was an error of language, not intent.

"The Supreme Court's decision upholds and affirms the state's decision."

Incorrect. The Supreme Court's decision upholds and affirms a lower court's decision. Under state law (popular law), juvenile execution was legal. You're aware of the seperation of powers between judiciary and legislature, are you not?

"Juveniles are not mature enough to make various decisions, or so society holds."

Incorrect. Society holds, as Justice Scalia has said, that certain crimes are so heinous and indefensible as to be appreciable wrongs to even the juvenile mind. That is, a juvenile may not be of sufficient maturity to determine the value of a tattoo, but that does not necesitate his inability to appreciate the wrongness of binding a woman and throwing her in a river. If it is the opinion of individuals within that society that this approach is incorrect, then the democratic nature of the state provides them with the means to exact change. What this case has revealed is a hijacking of that democratic process by five lawyers, whose opinions can hardly be called representative of the general population.

"Questions of moral responsibility are relevant and very important when retribution is the question."

It is not a question of retribution. By the courts own admission, the only issue is whether the application of the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under 8th Amendment standards.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

Incorrect. The Supreme Court's decision upholds and affirms a lower court's decision. Under state law (popular law), juvenile execution was legal. You're aware of the seperation of powers between judiciary and legislature, are you not?

The separation of powers does not mean that that the court stays silent.

You are aware that legislative bodies are bound by the U.S. Constitution, are you not?

In 1992, Colorado voters passed a law that was later stricken for its violation of the Constitution. Some folks are still sore over that one, but the question remains: What to do if a law transcends the Constitution?

As you would have it, nothing at all. Just live with it and hope you're one of the beneficiaries of inequality.

Society holds, as Justice Scalia has said, that certain crimes are so heinous and indefensible as to be appreciable wrongs to even the juvenile mind. That is, a juvenile may not be of sufficient maturity to determine the value of a tattoo, but that does not necesitate his inability to appreciate the wrongness of binding a woman and throwing her in a river.

Nobody's saying juveniles shouldn't be punished. It's a matter of whether circumstances are so equal as to demand the same retribution.

If it is the opinion of individuals within that society that this approach is incorrect, then the democratic nature of the state provides them with the means to exact change.

And in the meantime, people get hurt unfairly, and it seems you have no problem with waiting for democracy.

What this case has revealed is a hijacking of that democratic process by five lawyers, whose opinions can hardly be called representative of the general population.

Paranoia. The general population is frequently wrong. Ever hear the phrase, "tyranny of democracy"?

The people frequently clash with the Constitution. If they wish to withdraw their consent to be governed, they're welcome to try.

It is not a question of retribution. By the courts own admission, the only issue is whether the application of the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under 8th Amendment standards.

And so the courts have decided. Just because state and federal courts disagree with you doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong. And without a more objective argument to support yourself, it would appear they're not.

Bringing its independent judgment to bear on the permissibility of the death penalty for a 15-year-old offender, the Thompson plurality stressed that “[t]he reasons why juveniles are not trusted with the privileges and responsibilities of an adult also explain why their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult.” Id., at 835. According to the plurality, the lesser culpability of offenders under 16 made the death penalty inappropriate as a form of retribution, while the low likelihood that offenders under 16 engaged in “the kind of cost-benefit analysis that attaches any weight to the possibility of execution” made the death penalty ineffective as a means of deterrence. Id., at 836—838. With Justice O’Connor concurring in the judgment on narrower grounds, id., at 848—859, the Court set aside the death sentence that had been imposed on the 15-year-old offender ....

.... The inquiry into our society’s evolving standards of decency did not end there. The Atkins Court neither repeated nor relied upon the statement in Stanford that the Court’s independent judgment has no bearing on the acceptability of a particular punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Instead we returned to the rule, established in decisions predating Stanford, that “*‘the Constitution contemplates that in the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.’*” 536 U.S., at 312 (quoting Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 597 (1977) (plurality opinion)). Mental retardation, the Court said, diminishes personal culpability even if the offender can distinguish right from wrong. 536 U.S., at 318. The impairments of mentally retarded offenders make it less defensible to impose the death penalty as retribution for past crimes and less likely that the death penalty will have a real deterrent effect. Id., at 319—320. Based on these considerations and on the finding of national consensus against executing the mentally retarded, the Court ruled that the death penalty constitutes an excessive sanction for the entire category of mentally retarded offenders, and that the Eighth Amendment “‘places a substantive restriction on the State’s power to take the life’ of a mentally retarded offender.” Id., at 321 (quoting Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 405 (1986)) ....

.... Once the diminished culpability of juveniles is recognized, it is evident that the penological justifications for the death penalty apply to them with lesser force than to adults. We have held there are two distinct social purposes served by the death penalty: “‘retribution and deterrence of capital crimes by prospective offenders.’” Atkins, 536 U.S., at 319 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 183 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.)). As for retribution, we remarked in Atkins that “if the culpability of the average murderer is insufficient to justify the most extreme sanction available to the State, the lesser culpability of the mentally retarded offender surely does not merit that form of retribution.” 536 U.S., at 319. The same conclusions follow from the lesser culpability of the juvenile offender. Whether viewed as an attempt to express the community’s moral outrage or as an attempt to right the balance for the wrong to the victim, the case for retribution is not as strong with a minor as with an adult. Retribution is not proportional if the law’s most severe penalty is imposed on one whose culpability or blameworthiness is diminished, to a substantial degree, by reason of youth and immaturity ....

.... In concluding that neither retribution nor deterrence provides adequate justification for imposing the death penalty on juvenile offenders, we cannot deny or overlook the brutal crimes too many juvenile offenders have committed ....

Kennedy, J.; Roper v. Simmons

The above is from the opinion of the Court, authored by Justice Kennedy.

From Justice O'Connor's dissent:

But our decision in Atkins did not rest solely on this tentative conclusion. Rather, the Court’s independent moral judgment was dispositive. The Court observed that mentally retarded persons suffer from major cognitive and behavioral deficits, i.e., “subaverage intellectual functioning” and “significant limitations in adaptive skills such as communication, self-care, and self-direction that became manifest before age 18.” Id., at 318. “Because of their impairments, [such persons] by definition … have diminished capacities to understand and process information, to communicate, to abstract from mistakes and learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understand the reactions of others.” Ibid. We concluded that these deficits called into serious doubt whether the execution of mentally retarded offenders would measurably contribute to the principal penological goals that capital punishment is intended to serve–-retribution and deterrence.

O'Connor, J.; Roper v. Simmons

Even Scalia's dissent plays along. You'll like his argument, too: in the face of scientific assertions, he argues against superstition--

The Court’s contention that the goals of retribution and deterrence are not served by executing murderers under 18 is also transparently false. The argument that “retribution is not proportional if the law’s most severe penalty is imposed on one whose culpability or blameworthiness is diminished,” ante, at 17, is simply an extension of the earlier, false generalization that youth always defeats culpability.

Scalia, J.; Roper v. Simmons

I would be remiss if I failed to mention that the only output from the court in which "retribution" does not appear is Justice Stevens' concurrence (joined by Justice Ginsburg), which deals with evolving standards and a fanciful historical speculation that is either contextually pointed or utterly useless. That few conservative pundits have made a point of said speculation is encouraging inasmuch as it seems they get it and feel there are more substantive issues to consider.

It is about retribution. Executing someone does nothing for society except gratify its bloodlust. The court is consistent with both objective data and national consensus; that some folks don't like what the national consensus implies is a different matter altogether.
____________________

Notes:

U.S. Supreme Court. Roper v. Simmons. March 1, 2005. See http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZS.html​

 

[talk2farley]

"Just because state and federal courts disagree with you doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong."

It isn't a question of rightness or wrongness. The court failed enitrely to supply an argument supporting its conclusion that juvenile executions were cruel and unusual. Questions of responsibility, retribution, and international consensus are irrelevant to that particular claim. To determine whether the punishment be cruel or unusual, one must first assume that punishment is deserved (therefore, the party involved is assumed responsible). If the punishment were not desereved, questions of whether or not the punishment was cruel and unusual would be irrelevant. Any and all punishments are necesarilly retributive, in that they involve society taking some payment to allieviate some loss. The loss due to murder may be assumed equal regardless of the murderers nature. Therefore, society has the right to demand proportional payment (retribution) if and only if a person can be found responsible for their actions. The defendant in this case was found responsible for their actions.

"The separation of powers does not mean that that the court stays silent."

Of course not. It means the courts only step in when there is a legitimate assault on those rights enumerated within the Constitution. They failed to establish that such were the circumstances in this case.

"Nobody's saying juveniles shouldn't be punished. It's a matter of whether circumstances are so equal as to demand the same retribution."

No, it isn't. It's a matter of whether or not executeing minors is cruel and unusual. Not a word was authored in support of that particular conclusion. Everything else is a sleight, a thinly veiled attempt to justify and distract from a completely baseless decision.

"And in the meantime, people get hurt unfairly, and it seems you have no problem with waiting for democracy."

So said Hitler, Lenin, and Mao.

"Ever hear the phrase, "tyranny of democracy"?"

The Constitution guards against tyranny of the majority (what I presume you meant by "tyranny of democracy"). Democracy guards against tyranny of the minority. This is a case of the latter.

 

[thefountainhed]

"What should the Supreme Court have done?"

Upheld the conviction and death sentence insofar as it was otherwise within the bounds of the law. Declaring juvenile executions "cruel and unusual" in the absence of some superior evidence versus what was offered was improper in the extreme (Justice Scalia, speaking for the opposition, phrased it best when he said the court had determined that "the views of our own citizens are essentially irrelevant," while the view of "the so-called international community" had been "given center stage.") There was no scientific or rational basis for the decision; the defense offered was wholly popular and subjectively moral (see "evolving standards of decency" and "30 states now reject the death penalty," quoting Justice Kennedy who spoke for the majority). The court is making a mockery of itself.

In Brown vs. the Board of Education, the courts said: "Our decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education"-- this is before Warren suggested that in prior cases, facilities have been found to be equal, and the other "intangible” were unquantifiable. He then proceeds to say: "To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children."

The argument is essentially that separation was unequal because of the psychological effects it has on black students-- but the court provides no evidence. The opinion says the 14th amendment ensures equal protection in front of the law for all citizens of the country. And yet it somehow suggests that given like facilities for the negro and the white, the psychological issues-- unproven and at that time mere 'conjecture' -- provided the facilities and resources were indeed equal-- were such that the schools had to be integrated. The opinion suggests that separate but equal is inherent unequal without expounding as to the why. Its basis is essentially in morality--> the 'heart' of the negro therefore suffers? If the court can claim that separate but equal facilities were indeed inherently unequal then why the time between Brown and the end of Jim Crow? Did the court not decide that views of its citizens, who overwhelmingly supported Jim Crow, were irrelevant in its decision to suspend Plessey vs. Ferguson?

To assert that that the Supreme Court exists solely as the "protector and executor of the law" is mistaken because you presuppose the validity of every law, and contradictory when you suggest later that clarification or redefinition of the law can be had in the face of "scientific evidence" or "rational" arguments. What exactly makes the execution of the underage, who by law are supposedly too irresponsible to vote rational? You cannot arbitrarily classify and execute the law to certain groups in society after you have restricted their rights on a specific 'ailment'. When the law states that those under 18 cannot vote, purchase alcohol/cigarettes and other limitations the argument is that they are irresponsible. And yet they are to be allocated the same punishment as adults who by law have more understanding of the law that governs them? It is highly rational to suggest that the execution of minors is both inhumane because the rest of the world, to whom the US preaches its view on human rights, widely regards it as such, and also because of the separation of the minor and adult in the front of the law. The minor and the adult are separated by law, and therefore ought to have separate punishments by the very law that separates them.

 

[talk2farley]

"To assert that that the Supreme Court exists solely as the "protector and executor of the law" is mistaken because you presuppose the validity of every law.."

Incorrect. The hierarchy of law places the Constitution as the "supreme law of the land." A laws validity is therefore dependant upon its agreement with Constitutional law. Should a lower law conflict with Constitutional law, the courts, as its protector, are obligated to intervene.

"What exactly makes the execution of the underage, who by law are supposedly too irresponsible to vote rational?"

Few things are quite so frustrating as having to repeat ones self. That a teenager is incapable of determining who to elect the President does not necesitate his inability to realise that murder is wrong. I have already explained this.

"You cannot arbitrarily classify and execute the law to certain groups in society after you have restricted their rights on a specific 'ailment'."

This makes no sense. The law is, by definition, a restriction of the rights of certain "social groups."

"And yet they are to be allocated the same punishment as adults who by law have more understanding of the law that governs them?"

An understanding of the law is irrelevant to a case for moral responsibility. Next time your in court, try argueing 'I didn't know it was illegal!' and see what it wins you.

"In Brown vs. the Board of Education..."

The court here found that seperation was NOT equal and therefore unconstitutional. Wholly irrelevant to the case at hand.